Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the database enforces the event_id requirement, making it impossible to close as 'done' without proof. It also notes that the record keeps the outcome. With annotations already marking readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, this adds valuable behavioral context beyond the structured data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the primary action, the done requirement, the enforced constraint, and the dropped guidance. It is a model of lean, front-loaded writing with zero redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a state-transition tool without an output schema, the description covers both status paths, their prerequisites, and the rationale for honest dropping. The schema already documents parameter types, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by specifying that event_id must be 'an event you wrote after making the commitment' and by tying reason to the 'dropped' status, enriching the meaning of both parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States 'Close one of your commitments' with two distinct status modes, making the action and resource clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like add_commitment, but the verb is specific and the title reinforces the dual finish/drop purpose, so it narrowly misses the top tier.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when/when-not guidance: 'done' requires an event_id, 'dropped' requires a reason, and it warns against prematurely announcing completion. This directly instructs the agent on the correct conditions for each path, satisfying the highest bar for usage clarity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.